Riaa-at It Again

[j2k4]

My info is sketchy-

Heard RIAA has filed suit against several college students (one in my neighborhood) for sharing files using the school's servers. They want BILLIONS :lol: :lol:
I know this doesn't have much bearing on K-lite, but thought it was actually kinda funny.
Billions from educational institutions and students-should be a gas watching how this progresses.

[Fatal Error]

Originally posted by j2k4@7 April 2003 - 09:32
My info is sketchy-

Heard RIAA has filed suit against several college students (one in my neighborhood) for sharing files using the school's servers. They want BILLIONS :lol:  :lol:
I know this doesn't have much bearing on K-lite, but thought it was actually kinda funny.
Billions from educational institutions and students-should be a gas watching how this progresses.
I also read an article on this in one of the forums.. I dont know what dollar amount they were seeking,as it wasnt stated in the article. They can seek whatever they want, doesnt mean they'll get it. An incorporated issue in bringing a copyright infringement action, requires a showing that the "alleged" infringer has caused significant injury to the "copyright holder" by their actions..this has to be done on an individual basis,this can be very costly.

I agree, I think it will be very intresting to see how these cases progress.

On another note, look what happened in the Metallica lawsuit.. they wound up being boycotted..people simply stopped buying their products ;)

[j2k4]

Apparently the RIAA is also putting the arm on the Unis, too-they'll never get damages, but they're using some per song/DL formula @ some absurd figure like 100K for individual DLs, for totals in the billions. Funny how they are clueless that they only demonstrate their futility by virtue of the amounts they purport represent actual damages. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Re: the Metallica issue: Ain't consumer pressure a wonderful thing? If only it worked the same way at the ballot box.

[The Knife Thrower]

Someone should blow up the RIAA headquarters. It would be ok as no innocents would die. People have a right to protect stuff they create but these people go too far.

[Fatal Error]

Originally posted by j2k4@7 April 2003 - 11:12
Apparently the RIAA is also putting the arm on the Unis, too-they'll never get damages, but they're using some per song/DL formula @ some absurd figure like 100K for individual DLs, for totals in the billions. Funny how they are clueless that they only demonstrate their futility by virtue of the amounts they purport represent actual damages. :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Re: the Metallica issue: Ain't consumer pressure a wonderful thing? If only it worked the same way at the ballot box.
Yeah.. they'll never get damages from the Uni's.. especially if they have incorporated "anti-filesharing software" on their servers.. they have made a "good faith effort" and can't be held responsible if someone circumvents the software.

They will also have to show HOW they arrived at their "damage estimates".. and what the "actual damage" is that was "alledgedly"caused by the infringer. this would be interesting, because the "infringer" could turn around and claim that he/she was being "targeted" by virtue of the number of uploads they claim he allowed.

This could raise "another issue".. they could find themselves the subject of a lawsuit. This should be intresting to watch.

PS: I'm not even sure whether it's even legal for a "private interest" to monitor a users internet traffic in the first place.. let alone use the findings as "evidence" against them. I liken this to someone wire-tapping your phone conversations without a warrant (where is the probable cause?)

[Wizzandabe]

wont affect my school,

[Fatal Error]

Originally posted by The Knife Thrower@7 April 2003 - 11:47
Someone should blow up the RIAA headquarters. It would be ok as no innocents would die. People have a right to protect stuff they create but these people go too far.
Exactly.. Where will it all end? Whats next.. are they going to try and hack into your computer because they think you may be doing something illegal?

I agree with you.. sure they have a right to protect what they created, but I dont think that should give them the right to violate someone's privacy.
Whats next? .. an FBI raid on my house? Seize my computer? all because I share a few tunes?

Indeed, they have gone way too far.

[Switeck]

MPAA/RIAA make nothing but (legal) trouble -- they're associations of companies. It's only the individual companies under their banner that actually makes anything. Almost all of the piracy losses are smoke-and-mirrors. If the losses were real/quantifiable, they could be written off as losses for purposes of taxes and shareholder meetings.

Companies can write off as a loss anything that's physically stolen, but MPAA/RIAA companies wouldn't DARE put that on their taxes or tell that to their shareholders.

Believe it or not, MPAA and RIAA *ARE* asking for hacking rights and immunity from accidental damages. That way they CAN look at what's on your computer and disable it as they see fit. They're also looking to strengthen the already-ridiculous legal penalties for piracy.

They're not far from reaching those goals, with homeland (in-)security, DMCA, and other pointless laws.

Carnivore, Echelon, and homeland (in-)security basically says you already have no privacy. Adware and Spyware are LEGAL because of very weak privacy protections. Verizon has been forced by the courts to hand over a list of names, addresses, and other private information because RIAA/MPAA says they're committing piracy... RIAA/MPAA does NOT even have to offer evidence/probable cause anymore thanks to DMCA... a search warrent is not needed. Guilty until we say otherwise! And people who ARE innocent really ARE being trapped in this sort of thing.

RIAA has already called on the aid of the Secret Service to conduct an anti-piracy raid in New York. Officially, RIAA was only there as 'advisors'... but the fact of the matter is the Secret Service wouldn't have been there with guns out if RIAA hadn't requested them. Fortunately, the targets did not resist arrest... it could've been fatal.

I use Peer Guardian, not because I think it's especially effective -- but because if I am scanned by known internet cops (those working for MPAA/RIAA/BSA) then at least I'll know WHO my accusers are... because the law has been changed so even that's not required anymore. I do however think Peer Guardian v1.95b offers SOME protection against these forces -- and it's simple enough for anyone to use it that it's like not having antivirus software to NOT have it.

[Fatal Error]

Yeah.. It's getting to be a real sorry state of affairs. A couple of years ago, if someone even suggested something like this could happen.. they probably would of been laughed out of town.

But nonetheless, it is surely becoming a reality,slowly, but surely individuals "rights" are being erroded.. didnt we go to war to prevent these kinds of things from happening?

From what I can see, the enemy is within.. go figure. Where will it all end ??

[MagicNakor]

Since the RIAA and MPAA represent American companies, they aren't legally able to enforce American copyright laws on people residing in other countries. It'd be a nightmare, really.

:ninja:

[clocker]

Actually MN I think you're wrong.
Copyright law is international and any country that has signed the agreement can enforce a complaint. You may not have the FBI banging on your door just whatever their equivalent is in your country.
Whether any other countries take this a seriouly as the US remains to be seen.
BTW, the suit against the four students does NOT involve the universities themselves and the RIAA is asking for $150K for each (alledged) illegal file.
Also of interest...the MPAA is NOT participating in this witchhunt. Maybe they're sitting on the sidelines waiting to see how it turns out.
As are we all.

[lunatacs]

Those billions will increase their chances of the spread of RIAA, like a damn virus.

[clocker]

I visited the RIAA homepage (on somebody else's computer, just in case!) where they have posted a speech given by their mouthpiece to Congress.
He claims that sales of cds have dropped 20some % in the past two years due to piracy by folk like you and me.
I wonder if it's occured to them that if their product wasn't CRAP then maybe more people would buy it?
They warn that if this isn't stopped now that they will be unable to develop new artists and the future will be bleak.
What a load of hooey!
The industry spends practically nothing on new artists now, preferring to shower money on already established stars ( anyone here bought Michael Jackson's latest?...thought not) or, even better, artificially create some new boygirl band to market as artists.
That's why so many singers/bands form their own record labels...the industry wouldn't drop a dime to promote them so they try to do it themselves.
The RIAA is a high profile, well funded PAC that is fronting for a dying industry. A dying industry whose death throes will crush some people (these four students won't be the last!) and will leave a big stink when it's over.
Hopefully, what comes after will be better but it's gonna be nasty in the meanwhile.

[TIDE-HSV]

High-tech Luddites.

[clocker]

Precisely.

[j2k4]

You damn betcha!

The rash of new "Star Search" type shows are a low-buck fix for their bottom-line!!! :lol: :lol:

What I actually fear (though a lot less now than when Clinton was in office) is the hand-in-glove relationship the entertainment biz has with Washington; lot of mutual admiration going on.
As they say: Hollywood is Washington for stupid people; Washington is Hollywood for the uglies.

[clocker]

We may have more to fear now than ever before. With all the loosely written Homeland Security legislation being enacted this past year, the RIAA could drive a semi right through the loopholes.
I wonder if it's just coincidence or whether this suit was initiated now in hopes of using larger world events as a cover? On a normal news day this story would probably make the front page, at least the A section, but I had to search to find it in my local rag. 20 pages of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" coverage and then a tiny little story about this suit.
Hmmm...

[sparsely]

This is likely the story that you're talking about:

http://www.freep.com/money/tech/newman5_20030405.htm

It's absurd. I love it. :P

[junkyardking]

clocker Posted: 8 April 2003 - 01:22

Actually MN I think you're wrong.
Copyright law is international and any country that has signed the agreement can enforce a complaint. You may not have the FBI banging on your door just whatever their equivalent is in your country.
Whether any other countries take this a seriouly as the US remains to be seen.
BTW, the suit against the four students does NOT involve the universities themselves and the RIAA is asking for $150K for each (alledged) illegal file.
Also of interest...the MPAA is NOT participating in this witchhunt. Maybe they're sitting on the sidelines waiting to see how it turns out.
As are we all.

Yeah in Australia the AFP(Australian Fedral Police) raided a few ISP's and RIAA has launched a case agaist a university where one user aledgely had 10,000 MP3s, RIAA wanted the identdy of student, Although the UNI refused, It agreed to keep records of the user for an upcomming court case.

$US150k a file you got to be joking

$US150,000 x 10,000 files =

$1,500,000,000 :lol: :lol: :lol:

[MagicNakor]

From what I understand of what's been said here, the hacking and the like would be through loopholes in the Patriot Act, or Homeland Security thing, or something like that. Those certainly aren't enforcable on other countries.

:ninja:

[clocker]

That's an excellent point MN, however I fear the end result will stay the same.
A successful prosecution in the US will set precedents that will resonate worldwide.
It would seem by the outrageous sums being asked for as damages that this suit is meant to attract attention rather than actually compensate the plaintiffs. Also, they need to establish that actual harm has been done.
If, by using means available only in the US, the RIAA can prove the factual basis for harm then prosecutions in any country can proceed with a far greater likelihood of success. Your country may not be able to hack your computer or monitor your bandwidth usage but they'll find some way to getcha if they really want.

[Fatal Error]

Originally posted by Sparsely@8 April 2003 - 01:24
This is likely the story that you're talking about:

http://www.freep.com/money/tech/newman5_20030405.htm

It's absurd. I love it. :P
Yeah really.. 652,000 files? What was this guy running "DEEP BLUE"?? :lol: :rolleyes:

@ Sparsely: Thanks for posting that link, it helps give readers an insight about what we're talking about here.

[Switeck]

Get this:
The guy who's in trouble didn't actually have those files on his computer/s.
All he did was make links to the files which were LOCAL on the University's networks... so he wasn't even providing INTERNET links (unless you could access it from the outside) -- these were LAN links.
The University wasn't even NOTIFIED before RIAA filed suit and started taking 'evidence'...

And the guy could claim to have done it as a 'study gone out of control' about the rampant file sharing going on at a university...

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Switeck@8 April 2003 - 10:39

And the guy could claim to have done it as a 'study gone out of control' about the rampant file sharing going on at a university...
That would be a blast to see-kinda like John Gotti's lawyer Bruce Cutler: "They were exchanging sauce recipes, Your Honor-honest!" :lol: :lol:

Clocker-
I hope this doesn't develop as you fear; I think the RIAA has to recoup some credibility before they make any major moves.

We shall, nevertheless, remain vigilant, yes?

[Bozobub]

Originally posted by Fatal Error@7 April 2003 - 18:27
Exactly.. Where will it all end? Whats next.. are they going to try and hack into your computer because they think you may be doing something illegal?

:o Actually, they ARE trying to get permission (along w/ Hollywood) to "preemptively" hack systems to not only detect copyright infringement, but actually to HACK them. In other words, to crash/modify/whatever they damn please to any system without getting any permission from even a court!
This is no bull - there're a buncha articles on ZDnet and other sites about this, if yer interested. Love them fat b@st@rds in the RIAA, no? :angry:

[Fatal Error]

Originally posted by Switeck@8 April 2003 - 11:39
Get this:
The guy who's in trouble didn't actually have those files on his computer/s.
All he did was make links to the files which were LOCAL on the University's networks... so he wasn't even providing INTERNET links (unless you could access it from the outside) -- these were LAN links.
The University wasn't even NOTIFIED before RIAA filed suit and started taking 'evidence'...

And the guy could claim to have done it as a 'study gone out of control' about the rampant file sharing going on at a university...
I have to tell ya.. this REALLY boggles my mind. I cant even IMAGINE how these people are allowed to do this..its preposterous, to say the very least.

It seems like they just threw ALL the Criminal Procedure Laws right out the window here?.. not to mention all the Constitutional issues, that it seems their just trampling all over with impunity.. this is total insanity.

In addition to the many things that you have already pointed out in various posts on this issue.. my take on the article is, not only did he not have all these files on his computer, but simply posted LAN links to them,
they are tying to hold him responsible and seek damages for files that were
"offered" in the links.. and not the files that were actually uploaded from them.. this is crazy.

I think alot of issues and claims are going to be made by his attorneys.. and I'm sure he will have good ones because this will be a "very high profile" case and they're gonna want to jump on the bandwagon and rush to his defense.

I also think (and hope) alot of these issues will be sorted out.. I think it will become very apperant to our elected leaders that unless some semblence
of law and order, as well as respect for the rights of the people that ELECTED them,are adhered too.. they will not be re-elected.

The Court of "public opinion" is very powerful, and reasonable people will simply not tolerate or allow this type of injustice, or intrusion into their privacy.

In any event, lets hope that this will be the case.

[Fatal Error]

Originally posted by Bozobub+8 April 2003 - 13:25--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bozobub @ 8 April 2003 - 13:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Fatal Error@7 April 2003 - 18:27
Exactly.. Where will it all end? Whats next.. are they going to try and hack into your computer because they think you may be doing something illegal?

:o Actually, they ARE trying to get permission (along w/ Hollywood) to "preemptively" hack systems to not only detect copyright infringement, but actually to HACK them. In other words, to crash/modify/whatever they damn please to any system without getting any permission from even a court&#33;
This is no bull - there&#39;re a buncha articles on ZDnet and other sites about this, if yer interested. Love them fat b@st@rds in the RIAA, no? :angry:[/b][/quote]
And if this isnt bad enough.. it gets worse, they also want immunity from any "accidental damage" to your system as a result of them hacking into it..
can you imagine that? :angry:

[Tempest]

Wow, Trillions, hey. For the best part of living in the UK the authorities dont bother with 1 bit d/l&#39;s like me. So its ok. Funny how the little people get stiffed, and the money smoking companies sue for everything you get. The blame piracy for decrease in sales, but really its the prices of music (in the UK its much higher than anywhere else, the courts know this and all you get a slap on the wrist) and the crap "artists" ie Gareth Gates, Will Young and the whole "popstars" shite. Id rather d/l the original song than buy a manufactured singers redo. In the UK the ISP are only allowed to monitor network usage but not content. Its against the law. Only the police are allowed to tap internet &#39;lines&#39; after getting a warrant by a judge. To hell with all this copyrighting, im moving to Cyprus, there are no copyright laws there, ive seen police officers walk by stands of copied DVDs on every corner shop, oh and you cant be sued by anyone for &#39;copyright&#39; offences, no one not even the m@crosoft craporation.
Reasons why you cant be sued.
1. Hacking is an invasion of privacy,
2. Data stored on your PC is your own property. Nuf said
3. Its impossible for anyone to determine that the file you d/l ed is copyrighted, ie someones changed the name.
4. You cant copyright electrical impulses.

If anyof this fails, just lock your door, when the authorities turn up just start to format your hdd, as soon as it starts its unreadable.

[Fatal Error]

Originally posted by Tempest@8 April 2003 - 19:22
Wow, Trillions, hey. For the best part of living in the UK the authorities dont bother with 1 bit d/l&#39;s like me. So its ok. Funny how the little people get stiffed, and the money smoking companies sue for everything you get. The blame piracy for decrease in sales, but really its the prices of music (in the UK its much higher than anywhere else, the courts know this and all you get a slap on the wrist) and the crap "artists" ie Gareth Gates, Will Young and the whole "popstars" shite. Id rather d/l the original song than buy a manufactured singers redo. In the UK the ISP are only allowed to monitor network usage but not content. Its against the law. Only the police are allowed to tap internet &#39;lines&#39; after getting a warrant by a judge. To hell with all this copyrighting, im moving to Cyprus, there are no copyright laws there, ive seen police officers walk by stands of copied DVDs on every corner shop, oh and you cant be sued by anyone for &#39;copyright&#39; offences, no one not even the m@crosoft craporation.
Reasons why you cant be sued.
1. Hacking is an invasion of privacy,
2. Data stored on your PC is your own property. Nuf said
3. Its impossible for anyone to determine that the file you d/l ed is copyrighted, ie someones changed the name.
4. You cant copyright electrical impulses.

If anyof this fails, just lock your door, when the authorities turn up just start to format your hdd, as soon as it starts its unreadable.
Hmmm.. I used to think the same thing.. boy was I disillusioned. I can&#39;t speak on the laws in the U.K. or Cypress, I&#39;ve never lived there. But the fact of the matter is that FOUR students here in the U.S. have infringment suits pending against them, and I find it pretty unlikely that the attorney&#39;s representing these mega-millon dollar intrests would file lawsuits that they couldnt win,and destroy their bosses credibility altogether.. must be something to this, ya think? :rolleyes:

[Jibbler]

No, I think its a political statement. Court cases make headlines, and that&#39;s what they want. The RIAA can kiss my ass. They aren&#39;t even offering any other options in place of free filesharing. Even the music/movie industry has failed to bring to market any other options for customers. They say no, we say yes, and the battle goes on for another day. ;)

[clocker]

FatalError- I respectfully disagree.
Clearly, they have no hope of actually collecting the sums of money they seek so I think that the whole point of this fiasco is to gain a forum in which to air their grievances.They actually win if they can legitimize the theory that p2p pirates are substantially at fault for their business losses no matter the outcome of this particular trial.
Having tried the "Just Say No" method- and discovered that it works no better for them than it did for Nancy Reagan-this is just phase two of the campaign.
Phase three will be the real attempt to go after everyday users.
Phase four is where they have to decide if they are willing to finance a multiyear,megaexpensive attempt to throttle John/Jane Public.
Personally, I think they will come to their senses before that but what do I know?
We did, after all, try Prohibition in this country...

Jibbler- Yep.

[Fatal Error]

Makes me kind of wonder what kind of an effect this would have on filesharing in general if they lost these cases after all this publicity.

There would be nothing that I would like to see more than RIAA/MPAA et al
become the defendents in a class action suit brought by 14 some million fileshares and get the bejesus sued out of them for privacy invasion :D :D

@ clocker: I never expected or believed that they would ever actually collect these rediculous sums of money, and yes they have a forum (albeit, a very expensive one) and there is nothing more that I would like to see than your theory prove correct. However, some very significant issues have been raised here, especially in the area of privacy. Guess I&#39;m just going to have to wait and see how this whole mess plays out. It should be very intresting to see how far their going to go with this thing.

[clocker]

From their standpoint I&#39;m sure this legal forum is pretty cheap. Lotta bang for the buck considering the amount of press I&#39;m sure this will generate.
I&#39;m going to monitor the number of Kazaa dl&#39;s on Downloads.com and will post if a significant % change occurs. This seems like a quick and dirty way of guaging how the public is reacting to this.

[Fatal Error]

I agree.. even though this campaign that they&#39;ve launched has got to be costing millions they probably figure their still getting off cheap.. I mean the media coverage, and hence the free publicity, that this thing is going to generate, is priceless. I figure their just going to tack the price of what they actually have to pay onto the cost of the product,which is what usually happens.

It&#39;s a pretty risky game in my view, because it will drive up the cost of an already overpriced product, therefore providing a further incentive for filesharers to get it from a "free source" rather than puchasing it, which would result in even a bigger slump in their sales which also equates to less money going to the artist(s)..

I think that these "threats" may scare off some filesharers.. but we both know that what they threaten to do and what they can actually get away with are two entirely different things. I dont think there&#39;s going to be any dramatic drop in filesharing between new or old users, but it would be intresting to keep an eye on.

I think the important thing here is that ALL users should take all the precautions that are available.. why invite trouble when it can be avoided, get Peer Guardian at the very least, and keep it updated.

btw: nice work Switeck.. it works very well. :) B)

[Switeck]

One other thing that hasn&#39;t been mentioned here: the student in trouble ran an automatic cataloger of all the shared files on the _LAN_ network -- that is all the files shared by other students (and admins?) at that university. These files CANNOT be downloaded by people on the internet ONLY by people on the same LAN and ONLY if they knew the address (which this cataloger provides...) The student has NO way of controlling WHAT people share on the LAN, so he is in short being prosecuted for OTHER PEOPLE&#39;S &#39;crimes&#39;. (I&#39;m not even sure there is much of a copyright issue here because this is occuring in a sense on 1 LAN... or copying files inside a single network.)

The major difference with this is THIS particular cataloger can be accessed from the INTERNET even though the files it finds CANNOT. It would in fact be the PERFECT tool for RIAA to find copyright violations inside that university from the internet&#33; But RIAA seems to have killed the goose that lays the golden egg.

And RIAA started this whole fiasco without either a search warrent OR notification to the university...

I hope they get countersued for a more &#39;reasonable&#39; sum (than they&#39;re asking) like &#036;1 million. :P

[Fatal Error]

Originally posted by Switeck@9 April 2003 - 00:52
One other thing that hasn&#39;t been mentioned here: the student in trouble ran an automatic cataloger of all the shared files on the _LAN_ network -- that is all the files shared by other students (and admins?) at that university. These files CANNOT be downloaded by people on the internet ONLY by people on the same LAN and ONLY if they knew the address (which this cataloger provides...) The student has NO way of controlling WHAT people share on the LAN, so he is in short being prosecuted for OTHER PEOPLE&#39;S &#39;crimes&#39;. (I&#39;m not even sure there is much of a copyright issue here because this is occuring in a sense on 1 LAN... or copying files inside a single network.)

The major difference with this is THIS particular cataloger can be accessed from the INTERNET even though the files it finds CANNOT. It would in fact be the PERFECT tool for RIAA to find copyright violations inside that university from the internet&#33; But RIAA seems to have killed the goose that lays the golden egg.

And RIAA started this whole fiasco without either a search warrent OR notification to the university...

I hope they get countersued for a more &#39;reasonable&#39; sum (than they&#39;re asking) like &#036;1 million. :P
It seems to me that this student is getting a very raw deal all the way around. Just by virtue of him NOT physically having the files on HIS computer and thereby NOT having CONTROL over their use would make this a very dicey case to bring an infringement issue on..this is further complicated by the fact that the files in question are on what could be argued as a "private network", thats not accessable from the internet,or rather,the files on it arent. The fact that the Uni wasnt even notified that this was going on when it was discovered, further complicates things.

Having said all of this, I am very inclined to agree with you that this student is indeed being prosecuted for the crimes of others..how sucessful this will be,remains to be seen. They threaten to do all kinds of things.. If and when they actually do them is another matter,and I think that IF they start doing the things they are threatening, they should be prepared for massive acts of retalliation (lol) some 14 million filesharers can keep your IT crew busy for a very long time... :D :D

[clocker]

The more I ponder this case the odder it becomes.
The RIAA seems to have picked an instance of filesharing which has all sorts of extraneous complications which could only make the outcome more difficult to predict.
Why not, for instance, cruise this forum ( which anybody can do anonymously) and target a user who has openly admitted having a large collection of songs on their HD and is sharing them with one and all?
Very clear cut and no murky side issues.
No university or other third party involved.
One defendant, one computer, indisputable evidence and a chance to cut to the bone of their contention, i.e. "This guy is causing us material harm by allowing others to access for free the copyrighted product that we are attempting to sell".
Very clean cut case.
Why didn&#39;t they do that?

Maybe I&#39;ve just been watching too much Law & Order...

[chloe_cc2002]

Carnivore, Echelon, and homeland (in-)security basically says you already have no privacy. Adware and Spyware are LEGAL because of very weak privacy protections. Verizon has been forced by the courts to hand over a list of names, addresses, and other private information because RIAA/MPAA says they&#39;re committing piracy... RIAA/MPAA does NOT even have to offer evidence/probable cause anymore thanks to DMCA... a search warrent is not needed. Guilty until we say otherwise&#33; And people who ARE innocent really ARE being trapped in this sort of thing

very true, and particularly in this political climate where powers have been enlarged under the guise of &#39;terrorism&#39;

The &#39;Feds&#39; ..aka the Australian Federal Police have raided Unis here in Oz and although the files havn&#39;t been handed over I think that is some indication that where there is will you can&#39;t discount the possibility.

As for skipping international boundaries, the shield of anonymity didnt protect a user on a forum board where there post was conceived of as defamatory of a particular Canadian company and they jumped hoops through two jurisdictions to get a subpoena.

http://www.imahosting.com/sigs/croped.gif

[TheMan1891]

I would really love to help with blowing up the RIAA headquarters... God knows I do. I really really hate the methods they are using to stop stuff like that they have no fucking mind.

[clocker]

Originally posted by TheMan1891@10 April 2003 - 21:22
I would really love to help with blowing up the RIAA headquarters... God knows I do.
A noble sentiment (? :blink: ) but probably not the best way to win hearts and minds...

[kAb]

Originally posted by TheMan1891@10 April 2003 - 12:22
I would really love to help with blowing up the RIAA headquarters... God knows I do. I really really hate the methods they are using to stop stuff like that they have no fucking mind.
you sound like an anti-abortionist :unsure:

[Fatal Error]

Originally posted by clocker@9 April 2003 - 20:44
The more I ponder this case the odder it becomes.
The RIAA seems to have picked an instance of filesharing which has all sorts of extraneous complications which could only make the outcome more difficult to predict.
Why not, for instance, cruise this forum ( which anybody can do anonymously) and target a user who has openly admitted having a large collection of songs on their HD and is sharing them with one and all?
Very clear cut and no murky side issues.
No university or other third party involved.
One defendant, one computer, indisputable evidence and a chance to cut to the bone of their contention, i.e. "This guy is causing us material harm by allowing others to access for free the copyrighted product that we are attempting to sell".
Very clean cut case.
Why didn&#39;t they do that?

Maybe I&#39;ve just been watching too much Law & Order...
I agree.. too many controversial issue&#39;s and practices here. I&#39;m sure there would of been a much better way to do this.. such as you suggested.

[TrIpMiX]

I am a little woried about the enertainment industry as the files are gettin smaler and smaler and speed faster and faster making holywood bankrupt and there will be no new good movies, but I supose thats a long time before that happends. The whole consept of money will be getting outdated as we can get entertainment for free 24/7 if you want. So I gess what I&#39;m saying is I can understand way they are getting so frantic.

[chloe_cc2002]

QUOTE (TheMan1891 @ 10 April 2003 - 12:22)
I would really love to help with blowing up the RIAA headquarters... God knows I do. I really really hate the methods they are using to stop stuff like that they have no fucking mind.&nbsp;


KaB
you sound like an anti-abortionist


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

tend to agree. It is nice to be passionate but......blowing up the Headquarters....glad it wasn&#39;t just my overreaction....was a bit worried there :unsure:

[clocker]

Originally posted by TrIpMiX@13 April 2003 - 04:22
The whole consept of money will be getting outdated as we can get entertainment for free 24/7 if you want. So I gess what I&#39;m saying is I can understand way they are getting so frantic.
I don&#39;t think that either of those scenarios is likely in the foreseeable future.

The entertainment industry is NOT losing money.
Movie receipts are growing yearly.
Movie rentals grow also.
Sales of CDs are increasing numerically, they&#39;re bitching because percentage of growth has slowed, NOT the actual number of units sold.

RIAA/MPAA are rattled because they&#39;re losing their stranglehold on the product, but I&#39;m sure they&#39;re working on a way to co-exist with the internet and p2p programs. Whether we&#39;ll like the solution remains to be seen.

[TrIpMiX]

I don&#39;t think that either of those scenarios is likely in the foreseeable future.
Me neither, a little (look at my avatar) :D Sorry, was just rambling.

Trip